Leftists appear to believe that the only reason that criminals use guns is that the police set a bad example by doing so first. This seems to be the logic behind the Obama administration’s campaign to unilaterally disarm the U.S. of our nuclear deterrent. [h/t Instapundit]
Am I the only one who feels like our President has the foreign-policy sophistication of a romantic teenager?
The idea that the U.S. needs to set an example by disarming springs from the leftists’ egocentric concept of foreign policy in which all other nations and groups never act on their own but only react to what we do first. From this, it follows logically that other nations only have nukes because we made them first, and that if we get rid of ours, they will get rid of theirs.
In this school of it’s-all-about-me emotive reasoning, the entire world would have been better off if we’d decided never to build any more nuclear weapons after WWII. Surely, they reason, Joseph Stalin, being the paranoid, megacidal dictator bent on world domination that he was, would never have gone ahead and built nukes on his own. After all, what good would the unilateral possession of the greatest weapon in history do for a megacidal dictator bent on world domination? How could having the sole superweapon in the world have possibly advanced his project of spreading communism all over the world? These leftists believe that Joseph “what 10 million Ukrainians?” Stalin would not have obtained, much less used, nuclear weapons unless our evil military-industrial complex (whose members are much worse than Stalin ever was!) goaded him into it.
Poor Uncle Joe. Too bad he’s dead.
But, say the it’s-all-about-me emotive-reasoning leftists, even if we were wrong about Stalin he is dead and surely no one in the modern world would misuse nukes if they had unilateral possession of them. What would the Russian Federation, China, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and frankly everyone else with an industrial base at all, have to gain from having unilateral position of nukes? How could it possibly hurt U.S. to live under the constant threat of extinction? Why, nothing teaches a needed dose of humility like being enslaved.
Nuclear weapons, like any other machine, degrade over time. Without testing of some kind, we will never know what works and does not work. If, by shear wild improbability, we have serious enemies in the future, they can make an educated guess about the reliability of our weapons. This is especially true if they create a testing program and we do not. We run a real risk of a future enemy guessing that we have no nuclear deterrent they have to worry about.
National security is the primary responsibility of the office of President of the United States. Obama kept Gates, Bush’s Secretary of Defense, as a signal that he cares enough about national security to be bothered to appoint one of his team to the position.
But Obama doesn’t really care about defense, because he really doesn’t believe we need defending. He believes we cause all our own foreign policy problems. Obama lives in a wonderland in which good people can control the actions of evil people just by setting a good example. They can’t. Evil people hurt others because they can profit by doing so. The only way to stop them is to make hurting people unprofitable.
Nukes are real good for that. Grow up, Obama.